While the word “sophist” is no longer in general use, there are many examples today of sophistry which is the selling of expertise. How does the buyer know the expertise claimed is real, or whether the seller is an expert in name only? On March 6, 2022 members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups began discussion of the first part of The Sophist (to 235(d)) with some modern examples of sophistry. This led to consideration of Plato’s method of continuous division of expertise into successions of two opposites, to “chase a thing through both the particular and the general”. One participant compared the method to the exploration of a labyrinth while another described the divisions as options, but questions remained whether the choices of opposites were arbitrary or otherwise leading. These questions demonstrate Plato’s point about the importance of reaching verbal agreement on the nature of a thing such as expertise beyond its name, amplified in The Sophist by the visitor from Elea who warns against the worst type of ignorance which is “Not knowing but thinking that you know. That’s what probably causes all of the mistakes we make when we think.” Our discussion ended in considering the discord and disproportion in the soul that results from ignorance, where we will pick up in our next episode when we explore the nature of being and “that which is”.

Is the mind the cause of change and of differences in physical outcomes, as Socrates states in the conclusion of the Phaedo, or is it like software responding to the physical hardware of the body? The mind’s role was featured as members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on February 20, 2022 to finish reading Plato’s dialogue that ends with the execution of Socrates. What does the evolving science of quantum mechanics have to say about the role of the mind as the observer and its effect on the physically observed? What is the cause of the mind itself, and which appeared first in the universe – mind or matter? Our discussion proceeded to address Plato’s theory of Forms, based on the principle that things come to be in opposites which are indestructible and incapable of either increase or decrease. Socrates applies this principle in stating that the Form of life itself is the soul and, since the opposite of life is death, the soul as the cause of life is necessarily deathless and therefore eternal. The proposition of an immortal soul remains contentious, and we will explore it and the nature of the Forms further in our upcoming sessions on Plato’s Sophist.

The nature of wisdom was a focus at the outset of our second session on Plato’s Phaedo, when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on February 6, 2022, to cover passages 77(d)-98(b). Socrates states the soul experiences wisdom when it is free from the continual change and motion of the body and the physical world to which the body belongs, and in such freedom, the soul is able to investigate the unchanging, ever-existing nature of a thing. When the soul understands the limits of a thing – the two points that are the beginning and end of a thing – it can establish the common factor that is equal to both and therefore eternal and unlimited in its potential in the state of becoming in the present. We discussed the distinction that Socrates draws between composite and visible things, such as physical objects, and the soul which is noncomposite and invisible. This led to consideration of Plato’s theory of forms, the things in themselves that require nothing other for their definition, and knowledge as information about different things that becomes wisdom when applied to the goal of happiness that all souls are equal. We ended with what might be a practical application of the wisdom in Socrates’ question about the order in the generation of a thing. Does the logic of 96(b)-97(e), questioning the order of cause in the becoming of two from one, have relevance to what is now called superposition in quantum physics and quantum computing where two possible states exist simultaneously? Can mathematics correlate to wisdom, as one participant asked?

In our first of three episodes on Plato’s Phaedo, on January 23, 2022 members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups considered the properties of the soul that Socrates presents to his friends hours before his execution. Socrates says the body, in its constant state of change in the present, confuses the soul and so the soul’s path to pure knowledge is to separate itself as much as possible from the body in life. Does the soul interpret the varying inputs of the body’s senses with reference to opposites, in which Socrates says all physical objects come to be and because of which the soul is endowed with knowledge of The Equal? We discussed the Uncertainty Principle that limits knowledge of the physical universe, and The Equal as the balance that allows the soul to establish the difference between what is and what is not. One participant asked whether the number of souls is finite and if there is a point at which all souls connect, questions we might address in our next episode when we examine the properties of the invisible realm to which souls belong. Another posed the idea of the soul as “information”, which we began to explore in the context of the universal law of conservation of information and our recollection of departed souls. We ended our dialogue at 77(c), the point at which Socrates’ friends agree that the soul exists before birth but remain unconvinced that it does not disintegrate on death. Socrates defines death as separation of the soul from the body, and in our next episode we will explore his arguments that the soul remains intact, in itself, after death, and capable of recollection of equals and opposites in its thought processes.

Can an algorithm care about its outcomes, and a computer observe itself? These were among the fascinating questions raised in our dialogue on the first part of The Philebus, when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on January 9, 2022. We began with the importance of distinguishing the one from the many, or the same and different, which is a key theme at the outset of Plato’s dialogue and the significant problem of categorization in today’s machine learning. Humans still excel in categorization and pattern-recognition, which Socrates points out is the way we derive meaning from speech and musical sound. Socrates raised the matter of the one and the many in his discussion with Protarchus when, in concluding the best life is a mixture of knowledge and pleasure, they investigate the difficulty of combining a function of limits and the unlimited. What is the appropriate ratio of the limits of knowledge and unlimited pleasures, in the mixture of the two for the good life? How do we attain a “limited understanding of the unlimited,” as one participant asked? Socrates emphasizes the philosopher’s knowledge of number and calculation to define equals, opposites, and intermediates in determining the proportions of the unlimited and the limited before understanding the cause of the resulting actions. Also highlighted is the ordering of empirical data in the rational process of deriving, and then recalling, knowledge through the application of reason. And so how do we distinguish between the one and the many? Many questions were raised, but perhaps one participant summarized it most clearly as a unification of dualities in our experience of time as a linear sequence: “You can’t wrap your mind around reality, because reality is wrapped around your mind.”

What is justice? This is the question that began The Republic, when Socrates and friends set out to find justice in the city in order to locate it in the citizens. In our final session on The Republic, on December 12, 2021, members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met to reach some conclusions. How does the soul reconcile its combination of rational limits and unlimited irrationality, to apply reason in the changing state of the present? It seems, to Socrates, that the soul requires harmony so that it is true and just to itself in following the mean that is the path between extremes. If the soul is immortal and incapable of its own destruction, as Socrates states, then does justice originate in the soul before it can be found in the city of mortals? We examined Socrates’ proof of the soul’s immortality, and the soul’s imitation of the eternal forms of being in the present, when the soul itself cannot be imitated and is its own derivative. What is the purpose of the curious myth of Er and its numbers and calculations, with which The Republic ends, and what does it tell us about the construction of the soul? Is time cyclic? Do the rewards for justice and penalties for injustice endure from one life to the next? We may consider these questions when we resume season 2 on January 9 when we will begin reading Plato’s Philebus.

To today’s reader it may seem unusual that the philosopher’s first order of knowledge is number and calculation, yet that is what Socrates prescribes. On November 28, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the reasons why, in our fifth session on Plato’s Republic. We continued the dialogue on the nature of time that began in episode 4, and considered the differences, uncertainties, and probabilities that exist in the changing present – the state of “coming to be” that never “is”, in contrast to the eternal being of the past and future. In the present, the philosopher is able to navigate the physical world of differences and distinguish truth from falsehood, when equipped first with knowledge of number and calculation, then plane and solid geometry, and finally astronomy. Unlike the Guardians and the prisoner in the cave whose knowledge is restricted by their teachers to the visible, the philosopher can summon reason and apply dialectic to understand invisible first principles. Is knowledge derived solely from sensory perception? How does our technology change perception, and how do we train the mind? These were among the questions raised that will help bring us to a conclusion on the nature of justice when we finish our six-part series on The Republic in two weeks.

To today’s reader it may seem unusual that the philosopher’s first order of knowledge is number and calculation, yet that is what Socrates prescribes. On November 28, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the reasons why, in our fifth session on Plato’s Republic. We continued the dialogue on the nature of time that began in episode 4, and considered the differences, uncertainties, and probabilities that exist in the changing present – the state of “coming to be” that never “is”, in contrast to the eternal being of the past and future. In the present, the philosopher is able to navigate the physical world of differences and distinguish truth from falsehood, when equipped first with knowledge of number and calculation, then plane and solid geometry, and finally astronomy. Unlike the Guardians and the prisoner in the cave whose knowledge is restricted by their teachers to the visible, the philosopher can summon reason and apply dialectic to understand invisible first principles. Is knowledge derived solely from sensory perception? How does our technology change perception, and how do we train the mind? These were among the questions raised that will help bring us to a conclusion on the nature of justice when we finish our six-part series on The Republic in two weeks.

When Socrates declared that cities will have no rest from evils until philosophers rule, was he referring to a class of rulers different from the guardians? Examination of The Republic resumed with the question of a philosopher’s nature when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on November 14, 2021. Do all societies require a founding myth (or ‘noble lie’) as was provided to the guardians, and how would philosophers rule when they love the truth and hate falsehood? We considered the soul’s search for truth, guided by reason, from among the images of the constantly changing physical world that the soul receives from the five senses. How does the soul achieve knowledge of the eternal, continuous form of a thing, such as beauty, from the thing’s many varied depictions in the physical world? The challenges of finding knowledge in the present state of “coming to be”, when physical things are in motion and change, led to a fascinating dialogue on our perception of time. We will continue in two weeks by considering the knowledge required by the philosopher to locate truth, from one time to another.

Our examination of The Republic continued on October 31, 2021 as members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed parts of Books III and IV. In the passages from 412(b)-445(e), Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon consider the features of the guardians and auxiliaries who will protect the city from external enemies and internal divisions. Next, they proceed to look for the four virtues first in the city and then in the individual soul. We began with Socrates’ definition of health at 445(d)-(e) as a state of self-regulation or balance in nature, a theme that is applied to the ruling class, the city’s virtues, and the soul’s unity. Is the guardian class necessitated by nature or is it unnatural? Is the imposition of a creation myth, sometimes now called the “noble lie”, that the guardians are born of the earth and contain metals, an illusion and is this an appropriate system to maintain in a healthy city? References were made to the allegory of the cave that featured in our first session on The Republic: are the guardians like the prisoner staring at images thinking them to be reality without knowing the source? If as Socrates suggests the city is a metaphor for the soul, in which justice consists of a community of three parts, how can one know harmony from disorder when there are many differing perspectives across the world? These and more fascinating questions and ideas were exchanged during our discussion that will lead, in our next episode, to consideration of the character of the philosopher ruler.